linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] charger: max14577: Handle NULL pdata when CONFIG

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <12523bd9-0c04-4d63-9f0e-014f14d359c2@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 07:51:57 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Charles Han <hanchunchao@...pur.com>, sre@...nel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, lee@...nel.org
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] charger: max14577: Handle NULL pdata when CONFIG_OF is
 not set

On 19/05/2025 03:48, Charles Han wrote:
> When the kernel is not configured  CONFIG_OF, the max14577_charger_dt_init
> function returns NULL. Fix the max14577_charger_probe functionby returning
>  -ENODATA instead of potentially passing a NULL pointer to PTR_ERR.
> 
> Fix below smatch warning.
> smatch warnings:
> drivers/power/supply/max14577_charger.c:576 max14577_charger_probe() warn: passing zero to 'PTR_ERR'
> 
> Fixes: e30110e9c96f ("charger: max14577: Configure battery-dependent settings from DTS and sysfs")
> Signed-off-by: Charles Han <hanchunchao@...pur.com>
> ---
>  drivers/power/supply/max14577_charger.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/max14577_charger.c b/drivers/power/supply/max14577_charger.c
> index 1cef2f860b5f..af1694cac5ea 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/max14577_charger.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/max14577_charger.c
> @@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ static struct max14577_charger_platform_data *max14577_charger_dt_init(
>  static struct max14577_charger_platform_data *max14577_charger_dt_init(
>  		struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
> -	return NULL;
> +	return -ENODATA;

No, you did not test it and it is obviously buggy code. Please learn
first about pointers.

Best regards,
Krzysztof